US Sen.-Elect Scott Brown bobbed and weaved a bit at his post-election press conference yesterday when asked about Massachusetts’ universal-health-care law.

Yes, Brown acknowledged, he voted for it, which has already become a talking point among the chattering classes: See, even this GOP troglodyte knows there’s a need for ObamaCare — so go for it!

But, Brown quickly told the press (before moving on to less controversial topics, like terrorism), there are a few problems with the Massachusetts law that needed to be worked out.

Yes there are — to put it mildly. Costs are exploding, and although the word “rationing” is gingerly avoided, that’s what the state is talking about, just as the federal government is, even with the current reform drive stalled and perhaps doomed.

Even the early federal proposals have been attacked by the wife of the most prominent Massachusetts supporter of ObamaCare, Sen. John Kerry. Teresa Heinz Kerry, 71, was diagnosed late last year with breast cancer — just about the time a federal “task force” recommended that women start receiving mammograms at age 50 rather than 40.

“I was so upset about that decision of this panel,” Mrs. Kerry told the Associated Press and, indeed, the administration quickly backed off.

She didn’t say much after that one interview, but apparently Mrs. Kerry understands the reality of what Massachusetts bureaucrats like to call “cost containment.”

Here’s the lowlights of a story last July in The New York Times-owned Boston Globe. Mind you, the Globe was predicting a 15-point Martha Coakley win less than two weeks ago, and was calling the race a “dead heat” as late as Monday, but it’s still been unable to put a shine on this sneaker:

“A state commission recommended . . . putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding health-care costs . . . [to reduce] unneeded tests and procedures . . . Patients could find it harder to get procedures they want . . . They might find it difficult to get care wherever they want.”

Care — you know, like mammograms.

Here’s another Globe story from last May: “An increasing number of residents are now reporting problems paying medical bills . . . reporting they did not get needed care because of costs, which are rising faster than inflation.”

No one who voted here Tuesday thinks that a federal plan will cut costs — it sure hasn’t worked at the state level.

Last November, the state’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy issued a dry report on the system. The executive summary admitted: “Health care in Massachusetts is projected to cost $3,000 more per person by 2018 than the national average.”

So much for saving money. But what about the “waste, fraud and abuse” that Obama always mentions — or used to — as a way to cut costs?

“It’s not like the fat sits out here easily identified and you just slice it off,” said one of the state bureaucrats. “It’s marbled throughout the meat.”

Massachusetts government isn’t exactly user-friendly. The state recently stopped sending motorists notices that their licenses are about to expire — couldn’t afford the 44-cent stamps, we were told. But it has threatened to fine workers who appear not to have health care. Even if the employee has insurance at a second job, he must document to the state that he is insured elsewhere.

As for the premiums, they’re already the nation’s highest.

“My boyfriend has his own company, and he’s paying a thousand dollars a month — for what?” one woman told me yesterday. “The state got into health care, and the costs went through the roof — and Martha Coakley said if the feds took it over the costs would go down? Come on. He voted for Brown, and so did I.”

In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed the bill into law amid great fanfare at Faneuil Hall. Standing behind to his left was Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose seat is now to be filled by a Republican, and then-House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who has since been indicted on federal corruption charges and is facing up to 185 years in prison. It’s not a photo you’ll find on any Romney Web sites.

Gov. Deval Patrick will deliver his annual State of the State Address tonight. No one expects him to say much, if anything, about the state’s universal-health-care plan. After all, he’s running for re-election.